SOC250: Everyday Interactions
Research Interest Project
Alison Bell 4080300
North defines Road rage as when an
individual “fails to properly control his anger towards other drivers who make
inappropriate driving maneuvers” (2002, p84). Lupton defines these maneuvers as
when another driver takes inappropriate risks (which may break road rules) and display
a lack of consideration for others (such as tailgating) (2002, pp279-280).
Both Lupton (2002) and North (2002) agree that the resulting behavior lacks
control. North (2002) then clarifies that this behavior specifically intends to
harm both people and property. Incidents of road rage are occurring at an
increasing rate and the type of anger involved is thought to be unique to
situations of high stress that require interaction at close range in which a
certain level of courtesy is expected to be both given and received (Lupton
2002). This clip conforms to this definition of road rage in that the driver
uses both his car and his person to violently reprimand a truck driver for what
he sees as ‘inappropriate driving’ (this is clarified by the corresponding story linked above as blocking his path).
This definition of road rage becomes
significant when observing the ceremonial profanation present within the clip.
Ceremonial profanation is defined by Goffman (1967) as when the performance of
deference or demeanor has been violated. Deference is the way in which we interact with others that displays symbolically a level of
respect for the other party (Goffman 1967). Demeanor on the other hand, is the way in which an
individual symbolically represents their qualities so as to accord certain
deference (Goffman 1967). Through attacking the truck, the individual within the clip is
undermining his demeanor through an incorrect performance of deference towards
the truck driver. Both Lupton (2002) and North (2002) suggest that the result
of this kind of ceremonial profanation is a judgment upon the character of the
individual with North (2002) suggesting that outbursts such as these may imply
mental health issues such as intermittent explosive disorder, or merely the
presence of self-centered, cynical or aggressive attitudes. Lakoff suggests,
too, that when undermining their demeanor in this manner, an individual may be
viewed as “animalistic” in the way that they have allowed their anger to interrupt
their normally acceptable social conduct (1987, in Lupton 2002 p277). What this
suggests is that road rage acts as a case of ceremonial profanation that
dehumanises the individual to the point where witnesses attribute total
insanity to the aggressor. This can be seen in the clip through the man who is
filming, who refers to the man attacking the truck as a
“nut”, therefore implying insanity through colloquial terms (3:38).
This ceremonial profanation is not
simply achieved through the physical acts of the individual, however, but also
through the use of language. In the clip, the aggressor yells the phrase “get
the fuck out” at the truck driver multiple times (00:43, 00:46, 2:07, etc.). As
suggested by Daly et al. (2004), the use of the word ‘fuck’ serves to act as an
intensifier, generating an implicit meaning-in this case, a threat. Murphy
suggests that this form of swearing acts as an “amplifier which communicates
emotions…as well as releasing emotional tension” (2009, p95). What this means
in reference to the clip then, is that the man yelling at the truck is
communicating not only the desire for the truck driver to get out of his
vehicle but is also releasing through expression the anger which fuels this
encounter.
Murphy (2009) suggests also that the
use of this form of language may be communicating a certain performance of
masculinity. What signals this within the clip is the statement “you
fucking pussy” (3:13, 3:50). The term pussy is colloquial for a woman’s
genitalia though, as is done commonly, is used here to convey a supposed
cowardice or weakness. The individual making this claim concerning the character of the
truck driver may then be wishing to assert his own masculinity via suggesting
his ‘bravery’ through comparison. Similar cases of this can be seen through
Dundes, Leach and Ozkok’s (1972) exploration of verbal dueling between young
Turkish boys. In cases such as these, boys will often assert their own masculinity
by implying a weakness or heterosexual notion of femininity in their opponent.
This is done through the suggestion that they can insert their own penis into the
opponent, as is seen in the aggressors assertion that the truck driver is a
“pussy” within the video.
The performance of this ceremonial
profanation through the defiance of cultural norms via both physical and verbal
acts, signals social disintegration due to a naturally occurring breach of
social order. These breaches occur when the rules of conduct, which take the
form of obligations, expectations and moral constraints (Goffman 1967), are
broken. Heritage (1984) confirms this suggesting from a study of Garfinkel’s breaching
experiments that society functions through trusting that a certain level of
information pertaining to a situation is shared so as to ensure social order. A
breach social order suggests then a breach of trust. Goffman (1971) does
identify difficulties in this case in that certain actions may signify
unintended meanings of the performance to the audience. In the link above,
the claim is that the truck was blocking the path of the motorist who
consequentially became aggressive. Whether intentional or otherwise, Goffman
(1971) suggests that this projection can imply an inappropriate meaning or a
lack of respect. As Heritage (1984) concurs, we fill in the meanings for
actions we don’t understand or agree and the result of this necessity,
according to Heritage (1984) and confirmed via the aggression within the video,
is distress and anger. Another response is identified as playing along
(Heritage 1984). This should be viewed in conjunction with the man filming who,
before being spoken to or approached by the aggressor, threatens that “if he
comes to me I’ll run him over” (00:57). This response appears equally
aggressive and just as extreme as the behavior of the man attacking the truck.
This is a response to, what would be to the man filming, a breach in the form
of road rage that confirms the phenomenon of ‘playing along’ in a real world
breach.
There are several probable
explanations for the reason behind the sudden and complete disintegration of
the interaction. One such explanation is the tension between private acts
performed in public interactions. Goffman (1971) describes the front stage as a
performance that has been polished for the viewing of others in a particular
interaction. In the case of this video this front stage would be defined as the
performance in which cars drive at an appropriate speed, stop at red lights and
leave a certain distance between their own and other vehicles. Lupton (2002)
implies however, that the interior of the vehicle, as a private setting, can
act somewhat as a relaxant. North (2002) suggests also that this space may be
where the driver releases emotions that can’t be expressed in public, such as
anger. Scott (2009) describes a similar scenario for swimmers who also
experience this illusion of privacy. The interior of the car therefore becomes a private, backstage
space. However, this tension between the backstage and front stage nature of
the car through its interior and exterior purposes can often result in confusion as to what performance belongs where-as is the case in the occurrence
of road rage. Possibly due to the emotional connection to the interior of the
vehicle, the driver may then use the car as an “extension of our person” (North
2002, p199). In the case of this video, the backstage performance of increasing
aggression within the interior of the vehicle (North 2002) has culminated in its use to express the drivers’ purpose in the front stage world. This is
particularly evident when the driver performs a three-point turn so as to park across
the path of the truck. This performance thereby breaks front stage norms due to
the fragile integration of front stage and back stage performances in the
single object of the vehicle.
Further explanation may lie in the Jamesian
Action theory. In this theory there are three determining factors to an
individuals execution of action: choice, futurity and emotion (Barbalet 1997).
Futurity is thought to act as a cause for choice, due to an unwillingness to
remain in an unsure state, while choice is significant as it eliminates future
possibilities (Barbalet 1997). Finally, emotion is perceived as the
“determination of choice in social action” (Barbalet 1997, p104). This differs
from other theories of action in that it takes into account the individual as
an “independent variable” (Barbalet 1997, p113). This is significant in cases
such as this piece of naturally occurring data due to the fact that it provides
allowances for random acts that defy social norms through the mediation of emotion,
similar to the way that emotion blurs the division between front stage and
backstage as suggested prior. Emotion, then, is both a product of the circumstances
and a producer of future action (Barbalet 1997, paraphrased p117). Looking at
this in the light of our data, one could say that the emotion produced by the
perception of the aggressor thereby constructed action parallel to its
intensity. This “voluntaristic” (Barbalet 1997, p115) approach serves to
explain acts resisting social norms, such as road rage, through implying that
choice of action is determined by emotion, not simply social norms.
What’s being done
here, of course, is making sense of a situation through personal
interpretation. Heritage (1984) suggests that the force of social norms and our
general compliance to them lies in the way that they make interactions make
sense. In response to the breaching experiments performed by Garfinkel,
Heritage (1984) suggests that we use what knowledge we have to make sense of
situations that may appear illogical. Both Lupton (2002) and North (2002)
provide examples of this in their studies, claiming road rage to be a response
to stress (Lupton 2002), aggressive culture or the growth of suburbs into
cities (North 2002). In the case of this incident of road rage, several
personal explanations are offered up from the viewers. The man filming claims
that “he’s nuts” towards the close of the recording (3:38), suggesting that the
aggressor is unaware of or too irrational to recognize social norms. The man filming
then attempts to make sense of the belligerent drivers’ actions again in the
video description suggesting he “must’ve had a bad day”. Another attempt at
making sense of this incident occurs in the relevant web page that claims the
driver became angry towards a “truck blocking his path” (Live Leak 2008). This
is particularly significant when looking from the perspective that this is a
naturally occurring breach, as they both perform under the mentality that this
is merely a reaction to a breach of certain expectations. This mirrors studies
of road rage performed by Lupton in which anger on the road was “evoked in response to
incidents in which people had felt their freedom of movement was
inappropriately constrained by another driver” (2002, p285). Through these
examples, this piece of data exemplifies the notion that attempts to attribute
sense to all situations will always occur, no matter how senseless the
interaction.
Finally, the very fact that this has been
filmed demands consideration of Negotiated Order Theory. For Scott (2009) this
is where people uphold social order through both negotiation and participation.
People thereby monitor each other to ensure that social order is maintained, as
is the case in Foucault’s theory of panopticism where an awareness of being
watched maintains good conduct by the individual (Scott 2009). Heritage (1984)
claimed that Garfinkel also treated action as something by which we can be held
morally accountable. For Scott (2009) those breaching were met with disapproval
or eye rolling. In this case, however, it is the video itself that holds the
aggressive driver to accountability. The internalized significance of being
watched is seen also when the aggressor addresses the man filming yelling, “you
stay there” (1:09). From this we observe both the way in which we monitor each
other and how fully internalized the sensation of being watched by an authority
is.
This piece of naturally occurring
data then serves to exemplify multiple studies within microsociology. I have
argued that the explosive nature of the aggressor acts as an example of
character profanation through the use of both verbal and physical aggression.
The ensuing disintegration of interaction due to a truck blocking the path of a driver exemplifies this data as a naturally occurring breach. While justifications for this disintegration
have been proffered, such as the tension between front stage and back stage
produced through the nature of the vehicle and Jamesian’s emotionally driven
theory of action, these are just examples of an attempt to make sense of an
incomprehensible situation, thus reinforcing Garfinkels conclusions with the
breaching experiments. Finally the act of the man filming is indicative of Negotiated
Order theory in which individuals monitor each other so as to ensure social
order.
References
Barbalet,
J 1997, ‘The Jamesian Theory of Action’, Sociological
Review, vol. 45, no. 1, pp102-121.
Daly,
N, Holmes, J, Newton, J & Stubbe, M 2004, ‘Expletives as solidarity signals
in FTA’s on the factory floor’, Journal
of Pragmatics, vol. 36, no. 5, pp945-964, accessed 19/09/12, University of
Wollongong Library e-readings.
Dundes,
A, Leach, J & Ozkok, B 1972, ‘The Strategy of Turkish Boys’ Verbal Dueling
Rhymes’, in J Gumperz & D Hymes (eds), Directions
in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, pp130-160, accessed
08/10/12, University of Wollongong Library e-readings.
Goffman,
E 1967, ‘The Nature of Deference and Demeanor’, in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, Patheon
Books, New York, pp47-96, accessed 18/08/12, University of Wollongong Library
e-readings.
Goffman,
E 1971, ‘Performances’, in The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin, Hammondsworth, pp28-82, accessed
25/08/12, University of Wollongong Library e-readings.
Heritage,
J 1984, ‘The Morality of Cognition’, in Garfinkel
and Ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp75-102, accessed 08/09/12,
University of Wollongong Library e-readings.
Live
Leak 2008, Adelaide police investigating a
frightening case of road rage, accessed 22/10/12, http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fae_1229788064
Lupton,
D 2002, ‘Road rage: Drivers’ understandings and experiences’, Journal of Sociology, vol. 38, no. 3,
pp275-290.
Murphy,
B 2009, ‘”She’s a fucking ticket”: the pragmatics of fuck in Irish English-an
age and gender perspective’, Corpora,
vol. 4, no. 1, pp85-106.
North,
D 2002, ‘The fury within all of us yearning to break free: road rage comes of
age’, Thurgood Marshall Law Review,
vol.27, no. 3, pp183-203.
Scott,
S 2009, ‘Reclothing the Emperor: The Swimming Pool as a Negotiated Order’, Symbolic Interaction, vol. 32, no. 2,
pp123-145.
Wwwdotsvmsadotcom
2008, ROAD RAGE IN ADELAIDE truck VS car
UNCUT FOOTAGE original video of what was seen on…, accessed 20/09/12, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6aYuvoInqw&feature=related
